Ah ... so that's what you mean by the word "streamline."

The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment.

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada.

And the reasoning would be?

A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports.

And the problem would be?

But the current extraction of oil from the tarsands results in the spewing of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: it's already the biggest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

And the obvious solution would be?

Yet, according to the minutes of the Houston meeting, to multiply its output by five and to do it quickly, Canada would have to "streamline" its environmental regulations for new energy projects.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

AND SPEAKING OF IRAQ ... Anonymous commenter suggests that the U.S. is going to need an oil fix real soon now, given what Bush is about to do to Iran. Or maybe it's because of how thoroughly they've fucked up Iraq (emphasis added):

The Bush plan itself continues to receive negative reviews. On Monday morning, AP reported that the “extra billion dollars of reconstruction aid … won’t go far in a country where electricity output still barely meets half the demand and oil production is falling short by almost a million barrels a day..."

7 comments:

Anonymous
said...

And the Chinese are ditching their bicycles for cars by the millions. And they are building a new coal plant every two weeks for the next ten years. Be honest: attempting to meet Kyoto is pissing in the wind. It's bad science based on bad logic; if Canada and *all* its GHG emissions were to disappear, worldwide GHG emissions would still skyrocket.

But criticizing China doesn't fit your Liberal agenda, does it? No, you only criticize America and the country you hate the most: Canada.

Prediction: your Liberals get slaughtered next election. Why? Because they are now a fringe party with the worst environmental record of all parties.

Ahh, because little Timmy is putting out tonnes of GH gasses, we have the moral high ground to do same--is that it, anon?Tell you what--the next time your neighbour's burning up a brush pile in their back yard, you go and put a bigger one in yours and light it up--I mean, in your mind--it's the right thing to do.

I've given up trying to discern any coherence whatsoever among the different varieties of evil morons that make up the current Right: "Global Warming doesn't exist -- Yes it does, and here is our non-plan to address it -- But it won't matter anyway, because Canada is irrelevant -- Canada is a energy superpower --- The FIBERALS!!! 13 Years!!!..."

Since the Right doesn't engage in honest discussion among themselves to iron out these inconsistencies, marginalise the wackos, and come up with coherent policies that might resonate with sensible people (preferring instead to expend all their energy irritating their detractors with egregious dishonesty and hostility) there is no hope for them left.

Message to sensible connies (both of them): Your unwillingness to approach your own vocal spokespeople more critically has done you in. When you're next exiled to the political wilderness for another generation, blame no one but yourselves.

When we are talking about our international obligations to NATO we cannot back down because to do so is dishonourable and defeatist and a breech of our solemn/sworn word, something our CPC brethren tell us is unacceptable for Canada to do. The CPCers also claim to believe in the virtues of law and order especially in following the law. Yet Kyoto was international and Canadian law when they came to power, was a major international commitment with our honour on the line and yet the government has no trouble at all with the defeatist attitude of "we can't meet the targets in our opinions and therefore we aren't even going to try" and the CPC chorus chimes in approvingly. Yet none of them appear to recognize the fundamental contradictions between these two positions on two significant examples of Canada’s international word, following the rule of law and not being a defeatist thinker. Which yet again demonstrates the moral relativism and situational ethics/beliefs/principles of our CPC government and far too many of its supporters.

As for the oil sands, if they (either the Americans or the CPC politicos) think they are going to be able to "streamline" (aka reduce/deregulate) the environmental regulations so as to allow for increased pollution in the process of this fivefold increase in the current Canadian political climate they are in for a nasty shock/surprise. Given the current public attitude towards the environment issue and especially the climate change/greenhouse gas aspect of it having the strength it currently does any government willing to go along with such plans is quite possibly signing their death warrant not just as a government but as a viable option for government for some time to come.